And in the NY Times:
[url=http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/gluten-free-whether-you-need-it-or-not/]Gluten-Free for the Gluten Sensitive - NYTimes.com[/url]

03-04-2013, 11:10 PM

Annieh

Hmm, so why should the alternative to gluten be gluten free products? When we can just eat real food instead??

03-05-2013, 12:44 AM

peril

[QUOTE=Annieh;1115905]Hmm, so why should the alternative to gluten be gluten free products? When we can just eat real food instead??[/QUOTE]

Now

03-05-2013, 08:09 PM

Cryptocode

Well, you surely couldn't shut down Monsanto in one year. Those politicians might suffer loss of income and not allow the study.

03-05-2013, 08:39 PM

eKatherine

That was kind of disappointing. Better keep eating massive quantities of gluten forever if you can't afford tens of thousands of dollars to find a doctor willing to do invasive testing.

03-05-2013, 09:40 PM

OneDeltaTenTango

[QUOTE=eKatherine;1116961]That was kind of disappointing. Better keep eating massive quantities of gluten forever if you can't afford tens of thousands of dollars to find a doctor willing to do invasive testing.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more. Based on everything we see around us, the starting assumption should be that you are better off without gluten. Then add it carefully if you want and see what the effects are. Instead, the starting assumption today is that gluten sensitivity is psychosomatic and not worth testing via elimination.